Which is better in your opinion and why? I love the DDM offense. I implemented this offense this past year and my players loved it. I have recently purchased the R&R and have only gotten through the first video. It seems to me (so far) that the DDM is much easier to implement. What are your thoughts?

You say you only watched through the "first video" - are you referring to disc one of the series? If so...keep watching!

Disc 2 explains every detail of the different levels of play that you will introduce to the team one by one. Don't let the idea of 17 layers think that this is a complicated offense. Each is one simple basic fundamental that you probably already teach your kids at some point.

If you look at the READ AND REACT 4 out 1 in alignment and only use the north-south dribble and circle movement (layer 1 of the R&R) then you are effectively running the DDM offense. That's the greatest part about this. It basically starts by teaching you the dribble drive motion and then builds upon it. For anyone who wants to install the DDM offense I would suggest simply using the R&R and stressing dribble drives if your guard play is your strength.

Walberg's teams were avg. at best. However, this is a great offense. You are always going to have to have talent to win period. Back to the topic, I have every DDM video and the R& R set. I still think the DDM is easier to implement. Despite Rick Torbett claiming it's not a motion offense, it's very similiar. If you run five out, four out, or three out, with organized dribble penetration, you have the R& R offense. I hope I'm not offending anyone but I just like the DDM better. It took two 1 1/2 hour practices at Christmas last year for my team to implement the DDM and as a result, won 8 of the last 10 games with it.

When you say you don't like the R&R are you talking about the offense or the video?

If yousaw the video, teaching the first 2 layers of the offense (north-south dribble and basline drive adjustment) in a 4 out 1 in alignment you ARE teaching the dribble drive offense. Every layer after that is just a bonus and gives you more options. Do you disagree?

They are similiar but not the same. It would be like saying 4 out. Motion is the same as the Princeton offense. I like all of the DDM videos including McMannis' tape. I think Keno Davis and Fran's DVDs stretch the ddm label though. They end up being more of organized dribble penetration attacks as opposed to the actual ddm offense that Walberg invented. I look forward to his DVD.

I haven't seen Franscilla's but I'd agree with rjr33 here on Keno Davis's. It's NOTHING like DDM. They do a lot of stuff from the A set and kick out, but the offense is a continuity. If you're familiar with Swing, that's what it is, but instead of the roll back or fade with the screener, he receives double down screens from the top two players. Like I said, nothing like it. It's not a bad tape, just cleverly marketed...
I could sell one on the Flex if I said, now whenever we can drive it, we do and call it Crump's Stuctured Dribble Drive Attack!!! Hook it up!
Read and React is so FLEXIBLE and I love the adaptability of it's sets and personel and his vision of adding layers from middle school on up. It really is visionary in its simplicity and complexity at the same time. The basic principles do lend themselves to running a variation of DDM by just putting your big opposite. If you can get to Atlanta, and who can't with Hartsfield-Jackson, there's a clinic in mid-september. It's on their website and I can't imagine you leaving that place with ANY questions if you're truly interested. I think that having said all that, I'm still going to run, DDM with some R & R principles this first year rather than vice-versa.

I'm slightly confused on one issure between the DDM & R&R... Isn't the DDM run with the players rotating opposite the direction of the penetrator and in the Read & React; the players rotate in the same direction of the penetrator? ? ? ?

> I'm slightly confused on one issure between the
> DDM & R&R... Isn't the DDM run with the players
> rotating opposite the direction of the penetrator
> and in the Read & React; the players rotate in the
> same direction of the penetrator? ? ? ?

Yes, this is true at the basic level. However, the R&R circle reverse layer is the same as DDM.

Which movement is better with the dribble penetration then? The reverse rotation or same direction rotation? And why are there 2? I was interested in icorporating the dribble drive and moving my post player to the weak side. However, I heard about the R&R and purchased the video thinking it was the same plus some extra options. The video hasn't arrived yet and now I see there are differenses with this aspect of dribble penetration. To me, the reverse movement makes more sense?

The basic R&R circle movement happens when the dribbler is going in a straight line to the rim. This forces help from somewhere, else a layup.

The circle reverse, a more advanced read, happens when the dribbler gets arced by the defense and thus help is not required. Torbett acknowledges that this can be a difficult read. I don't think it's that hard to teach, though.

If the dribbler is getting forced off the driving line a lot, then work is obviously needed with either decision-making or first-step technique or both.

Circle reverse is a type of pressure release bail out in R&R, not something you necessarily want to happen, IMO.

Wouldn't the help typically come from the help side? Therefor by using the circle reverse, you are forcing the defense to make a decision. With the same direction rotation, are you not bringing more defenders closer to the ball? I do not see the point in having players move in the same direction. Can some explain to me how this is beneficial?

Take this scenario just so you can picture it easily....you're in a regular 3 out 2 in set with a point having the ball and two wings free throw ling extended. Your point drives past his/her defender to the right side. The right wing defender has to step in and help. On a drive to the right, the offensive wing player rotates to the right (the same direction as the ball) for an easy kickout. By moving that way he/she has created a much longer recovery distance for the defender.The offensive wing player is now closer the corner and is open to shoot or attack the basket. Now, the wing player on the weak side (the left side in this scenario) has also rotated to the right (ending up at the point spot as a safety behind the ball) That is circle movement.

Now take the DDM - on the same drive the wing player would rotate behind the ball and you would still have another player spotted up in the corner. You're ultimately filling the same positions (corner spot ups and a safety coming behind the ball). The goal is merely to attack and make 2 or 3 defenders collapse on the ball and have certain positions filled to kick the pass out to if you're stopped.

I prefer the Read and React because it's not predicated only on the dribble. If you don't have great ball handlers than you stress passing and cutting and backscreening and limit the dribble penetration, yet you're still using the same offense with the same principles. In DDM everything is based on driving to the basket. If you don't have a certain type of player it can't be run effectively.

The Fraschilla clip is exactly the circle movement. On a drive you simply drift in the direction the drive is moving and create space. I don't claim to be an expert on the DDM at all but from what I've read (especially on the initial drive down the right side of the lane from the 4 out set) the corner player has to read his defender and can drift to teh corner, come behind the drive or go backdoor on the jump stop. The R&R simplifies it by giving him one prescribed motion based ONLY on the dribbler. By reading the action of the dribbler only then your reaction is quicker because you don't have to analyze everything that's going on. If you have to see the ball, the defender, and your other 3 teammates and THEN make a decision, you suffer "paralysis by analysis" and you're too slow and don't do anything.

By reading what the player with the ball does, you're actually reading the defense at the same time and you don't know it.....your ball handler is reading the defense and acting based on that,By you reacting to the ball handler is the same as you reacting to the defense.

it's like the old math equation if A=B and B=C then A=C ...... if I'm unclear let me know

I have studied the DDM for the last 2 years. I have seen both Vance Walberg and John Calipari in clinics, and spoken to the staff at Memphis. This year, I spent a weekend at UMass and watched 4 practices, and 2 women's practices (they are running it as well). I can tell you this, if your looking to develop players, AASAA (DDM) is the way to go. The drills (Blood, Cardinal, Scramble, etc.) are all geared to develop ball handling, shooting, passing and finishing.

I don't know much about the R and R, but I know most coaches are playing with guys who are guards at the next level. If your not comfortable with everybody dribbling, shooting, passing, and attacking, please don't run the DDM.

Its much deeper than a guy circling behind a driver. If your really interested in the offense, their are tons of notes on it. Coach Peterman has some excellent stuff on it. If you want a video, no brainer, get the Walberg stuff.

I believe that R&R is a better offense. I think it's a motion offense on Red Bull energy drink. Despite Torbett's claim that it's not a motion offense. I like it more than the DDM because;
1. It teaches players to play off of principles.
2. You have multiple looks on offense. You can go from 5 out to 4 out to 3 out in one possession.
3. Almost unscoutable!!
4. Not hard to implement.
5. You can use it against any zone offense!
This is just how I feel based on what I know on both offenses.

I've gone through the whole R&R set, and am very very impressed. It is most definatley not a motion as the screens are more simplistic. Motion screens require a ton recognition about what the defense is doing. It's not just predicated on ball movement like the R&R.

I'm about to attempt to teach layers 1-5 (hopefully) to a bunch of 9 and 10 year olds. And I'm going to through in the "power dribble" piece so those players who need help know how to ask for it. But I am very impressed with this system and love it's flexibility. We'll see if 9 & 10 years olds can grasp it.

I am also about to start implementing the Read and React for the first time (7th-8th grade). I have 6 weeks before the season, so I was hoping to implement Layers 1-5, plus power dribble, backscreens, and pin/skip (lots of zone where I am). I am definitely looking for help from anyone who has used the offense-- any tips on implementation at the early stages.

I have 3-4 experienced players and 6-7 decent players (good basic skills, little experience in competitive play). I also have 2 projects-- physically gifted but RAW. I was hoping the Read and React would allow the experienced guys to play freely while giving the less experienced some more guidance, so at least they were not in the way!

I started the read and react with my 7th grade boys team. We have only implemented the first four layers and the boys look good........still have work to do but in each game they look better and better

I started my teams with 4-1 with circle principle two years ago, we went high screen pNr with pricinple if we were unable to beat onball defender on the dribble. Last year switched to DDM. Ran more backdoor or what we call side offense and some pinch post work on elbow flash of big with second team. Scoring jumped from apprx 56 pts per game, to 73 pts per game. Offense allowed bigs to handle. Improved ballhandling of every player on the team. Gave big choice of flashing high, setting high screen, or flashing ballside for flex cut to keep dribbler from forcing all action.

I enjoyed the RnR as well, and I'm limited in my exposure to the DDM videos, but a lot of what it comes down to is your ability to teach and instill confidence in your players is still the key to effective offenses. As for the RnR guys, I have found my younger AAU teams adapting and getting better with it than my older teams. Some of that I attribute to all the other habits that the older players have gained from their other playing experiences.

We tried R&R and now are installing DDM this year. Although R&R is well put together, very thorough, our coaches had a hard time putting it together. We tried to keep it to the first 4-5 layers. Overall didn't go smoothly at multiple grade levels to install, probably our fault looking back. Its sound basketball for sure, we like the principles. Spacing and the circle movement is similar on both. DDM we installed in 1 hour. The use of the deep corner as a stress point for a defense is great. They help, you kick, they don't its a layup with a weakside rebounder every time. Our kids love it.

rjr33 you said, "Walberg's teams were avg. at best." I don't understand this. His Fresno City teams were awesome. I've seen video of them playing. I've spoken with coaches he played against at Clovis. His teams at these two stops were anything but average. Now if you meant individually the players were average I might agree. But as a team they were awesome and I think that is what matters. Pepperdine.............you might have a point there.